I would just like to paint a slightly less rosy picture as regards the
second point, however.

I don't know about Australia, but certainly in Britain, 'successful'
climbing up the promotion ladder in academia means getting one's name
on as many published papers as possible.

That is the sad case in most places. And mind
you, the "climbing up the promotion ladder"
for most scientists, is not about getting a fatter salary, or more
prestige and fame.
It is more about getting a job (anywhere in the world will do), that
lasts for more than a couple
of years - or if you have one of those already, being able to secure a
grant that will allow you
to keep a post doc fed for another year. Most young astronomers (at
least) find themselves
bumming around the world for 1-3 year post doc. positions for a decade
or two - and that is
not nearly as romantic as it might sound to some.
I thought the rosy picture of life as a researcher, that seems
prevalent in this forum, needed
a little reality check... Mind you, I am still not complaining about
the life I have chosen.
I love what I am doing - but I am not doing it for the money or the
job-security.

This invariably leads to producing work that only falls within
the ruling paradigm of the field.

That is not quite true. The review process is
unchanged and is based on merit.
If the paper in question is controversial the review process can
involve many
iterations back and forth, but in the end, if the authors can
successfully defend
their paper, it will get published.

I would also contend that it leads to reduced quality of
individual contribution.

That I absolutely agree with. It also leads to
major works being chopped into little bits
and published one bit at a time, which is rather annoying.

Furthermore, to dare to attempt to publish non-mainstream work
can have catastrophic consequences to one's career, as was the case
with Dr. Halton Arp, as Martin pointed out, and as to which I was
disappointed to learn that Regner has no particular empathy with.

It wasn't that I have no empathy - it was more
the case that this is a while back,
doesn't stand to be changed now, and that I need to publish a couple of
papers
this year, in order to be able to get another job next year - It is for
those reasons
that I would consider it a waste of time.
But if you need a few more comments on this, here are some general
ones:
1) He is still publishing in all the major astronomical journals. This
means he
is NOT barred from the astronomical community because of "wrong"
views!
2) Access to a (major) telescope is only through an application
procedure.
If your project ranks lower than other projects, as judged by the
time
allocation committee, you won't get time at the telescope. All
astronomers
face that hurdle, and most major telescopes are heavily over-booked.

- Regner

Neville.

P.S. Bernie, I bet the author of the original quote you sent in was a
Scot.